If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.

Our Idiot Kicker went and Got Liquored Up Again

01-11-2005, 04:34 PM

By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com
Beneficiaries last week of the bulletin board material provided by the fast-talking but slow-covering Denver Broncos secondary, the Indianapolis Colts might find themselves on the other side of the motivational motor mouth game as they prepare for Sunday's divisional-round matchup against the New England Patriots.

On Sunday night, following Indianapolis' victory over the Broncos, loose-tongued kicker Mike Vanderjagt suggested during a local television interview that the Patriots are "ripe for the picking." It didn't take long for his words to reach the ears of some New England players and for Patriots veterans to react.

"That's great for Vanderjagt," said Pats linebacker Willie McGinest, who has made big, game-altering plays in each of New England's last three victories over the Colts. "Hopefully, he makes it the next time."

The last reference was a reminder that, in this year's regular-season opener, Vanderjagt missed a potential game-tying field goal in the final seconds.

Truth be told, Vanderjagt's remarks were fairly innocuous, and the veteran kicker is so nonsensical at times, his ramblings are generally ignored. But there certainly is no love lost between the Colts and Patriots, who played in the same division before realignment altered the NFL landscape in 2002, and who have remained fierce rivals.

Even as erudite a head coach as Bill Belichick of the Patriots isn't above resorting to some hackneyed motivational ploys, and Vanderjagt may have unwittingly played right into his hands. Last year, when Indianapolis tight end Marcus Pollard crowed that the Colts had played so well in their first two playoff wins that the NFL should just "hand us the [Super Bowl] rings," Belichick made sure his charges were aware of those words.

Before the AFC championship game, Belichick held up his Super Bowl XXXVI ring during a team meeting and reminded the Patriots that the NFL doesn't just hand out such gaudy hardware, and that it had to be earned. There is little doubt that, in New England, the Vanderjagt interview will be incessantly replayed this week. And even less doubt that, in some fashion, his sentiments will be plastered on a wall in the Pats locker room.

"I think they're not as good as at the beginning of the year, not as good as last year," said Vanderjagt when asked about the Patriots pedigree on Sunday evening. "And I think they are beatable. We have to play well. There's no question about that. But I think we're going to come back [to Indianapolis] Sunday night, headed to the AFC title game. I think they're ripe for the picking."

It is hardly the first time the outspoken Vanderjagt's mouth has gotten him into some degree of difficulty.

After the 2002 season, while appearing on a Canadian television show, Vanderjagt noted that Colts quarterback Peyton Manning might not be tough enough to win a Super Bowl. Manning responded by referring to Vanderjagt as "our idiot kicker," who probably made the remarks while "liquored up." The two men subsequently apologized, but there is still some tension between them.

Last week, the Colts responded to suggestions from Denver players that Indianapolis wide receivers were soft and didn't like physical contact.

McGinest said that Vanderjagt's comments probably will not have much bearing on this weekend's game, but hinted he felt they were ill-timed.

"If Vanderjagt feels confident enough to guarantee victory, that's great," said the Pats veteran linebacker. "Great for him. But [because he's a kicker] there's going to be a whole bunch of plays when he's not going to be out there [on the field]. The rest of his guys will be out there dealing with it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If either of theses teams needs to wait around for words from the other side to get fired up then they need to retire right now. This rematch was set in stone the second after Vandy missed that FG in week one and every player should have been fired up by now....

Edit Signature

Comment

If either of theses teams needs to wait around for words from the other side to get fired up then they need to retire right now. This rematch was set in stone the second after Vandy missed that FG in week one and every player should have been fired up by now....

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn't there a HUGE stink just last week about the comments from the Broncos? Marvin's a good blocker, but I'm sure the "soft" comments played a big part in his humiliation of Champ Bailey last week. By your logic, I guess Marvin should retire right now.

I think I smell a big cup of hypocrisy brewing...

Comment

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn't there a HUGE stink just last week about the comments from the Broncos? Marvin's a good blocker, but I'm sure the "soft" comments played a big part in his humiliation of Champ Bailey last week. By your logic, I guess Marvin should retire right now.

I think I smell a big cup of hypocrisy brewing...

My comments were referring to two bitter rivals that have played each other for the longest time not just any playoff game.

For example if your pats were playing a team like the Chargers then yes I would try to fired up to if that came from Nate Keading. But you're telling me that you wouldn't be worried if they were playing the Jets or Bills, and the only thing that could get them fired up was a sentence from a kicker that was influenced by the bottle ?

I also believe that there's a difference between calling out someone's toughness and saying that they could be beaten...

Comment

My comments were referring to two bitter rivals that have played each other for the longest time not just any playoff game.

For example if your pats were playing a team like the Chargers then yes I would try to fired up to if that came from Nate Keading. But you're telling me that you wouldn't be worried if they were playing the Jets or Bills, and the only thing that could get them fired up was a sentence from a kicker that was influenced by the bottle ?

I also believe that there's a difference between calling out someone's toughness and saying that they could be beaten...

I didn't say it was the ONLY thing that fired them up, but I believe that it plays a factor. It's just like throwing gas on a fire.

He didn't just say they could be beaten. He said they weren't as good as last year and they aren't as good last earlier this year. And the kicker (pun intended) was him saying that he thinks the Colts are going to the AFC title game and even speculated that it could be in Indy. This shows that he (and David Thorton) are clearly looking past the Patriots. That is blatant disrespect for the Patriots and their defense.

It's just like last week in the Colts v Donks game. I'm sure the Colts didn't need any extra motivation for that game. There's plenty of recent history between these two teams. Yet, the remarks that the Colts were "soft" gave them extra motivation. Did Marvin need to put Bailey on his [behind]? No, a simple hand block would have sufficed since Bailey wasn't within 10 yards of the play. Instead he laid Bailey out. Why? Because of thethe "extra" motivation.

Comment

I didn't say it was the ONLY thing that fired them up, but I believe that it plays a factor. It's just like throwing gas on a fire.

He didn't just say they could be beaten. He said they weren't as good as last year and they aren't as good last earlier this year. And the kicker (pun intended) was him saying that he thinks the Colts are going to the AFC title game and even speculated that it could be in Indy. This shows that he (and David Thorton) are clearly looking past the Patriots. That is blatant disrespect for the Patriots and their defense.

It's just like last week in the Colts v Donks game. I'm sure the Colts didn't need any extra motivation for that game. There's plenty of recent history between these two teams. Yet, the remarks that the Colts were "soft" gave them extra motivation. Did Marvin need to put Bailey on his [behind]? No, a simple hand block would have sufficed since Bailey wasn't within 10 yards of the play. Instead he laid Bailey out. Why? Because of thethe "extra" motivation.

I guess we're not to far apart in our opinions then. I just think it's silly to think that either team needs anything more or that Vandy's comments should be considered as extra motivation.

Comment

You really believe anyone (other than possibly the guy who might get on the field 5 whole times) is even vaguely looking past the Patriots? Then you know nothing about this Colts team.

Well, David Thorton was there with Vandy. He AGREED with Vandy. I heard the tape. He's even the one that mentioned that if the Jets beat the Steelers, the AFCC would be in Indy. I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like he's looking past the Pats to me.

As far as the rest of the team, they seem to be saying the right things.

Comment

Well to me he's just as much a part of this team as anyone. And for anyone to call him out because he's confident is down right crazy. People are acting like he's anything less than an NFL player. Most of you who watch the Colts has seen the guy put some licks on the kick returner whenever needed and he doesn't shy away like alot of them I have seen. So lets keep in mind we have no individuals on our team but a bunch of players who are a very good team.But everyone has to do their job.